That first video you posted, however, is getting a lot of play on these forums because of the speaker's claims about alternate dimensions,
which are simply not validated by empirical evidence at this time.

Yeah I remember first seeing that video probably more than a year ago. Although the OP's video looks like it could be the same lecture just given at a
different place. As for what he says about parallel dimensions, it is certainly an unverified claim, but it's not hard to see why someone might reach
that conclusion. Scientists tend to believe that computing power will increase exponentially with the addition of more qubits, so something like 300
qubits would be enough to simulate every particle in the observable universe. Think about what that implies though, it means the computer is
simulating a universe containing far more particles than the actual computer contains.

There's clearly something very strange happening there and it could be said that quantum computers must be exploiting parallel dimensions. That's
actually one of the main reasons I think we'll never have true quantum computers capable of computing things such as Shor's algorithm or Grover's
algorithm. The physics behind the idea of a quantum computer violates some sort of conservation principle imo. The core difference between a quantum
object and a classical object is the number of particles making up the object. Isolated particles will do weird things but large objects made of many
particles will experience decoherence and behave in a classical manner.

I believe that combining many qubits together inherently demands the construction of a classical system, because once you link together too many
different things decoherence will be unavoidable. It's why we can create primitive quantum computers with a small number of qubits but we haven't been
able to scale up those systems after decades of research. I mean the D-wave system is still pretty interesting but it can only solve a very specific
set of problems, it cannot break classical cryptography or anything like that. I really would like true quantum computers to be possible, but the
rational side of me says they some how violate the laws of physics.

But using gravitational models (Newtonian or relativistic) says that there is something we can't see that is having a great effect (which seems to
work like gravity) on large structures in the Universe.

So, unless gravity doesn't work the way we think it does, there is something there that we can't see.

originally posted by: Xeven
Shouldn't a Quantum computer be able to access data from the future?

It's not a time machine....
2

True, that, but the very nature of things quantum, perhaps, would necessarily mean that once quantum effects existed, and could be regulated,
manipulated and controlled, much less recognized as quantum, they would then have always been there....such is the respective conundrum and paradox of
quantum entanglement and quantum worlds, in the many worlds theory of existence.....

Difficult to wrap one's head around, but that's the essence of it, still. So, then, there would be a future and a past, but they would tend to
blend....

Dark matter, dark energy, they might be one in the same, it's something we don't know. I meant it's relativite to current models, such as relativity.
It is set at a constant amount in theoretical physics if I'm not mistaken, we just don't know what, why, how it is.

As an interesting aside, anyone interested in the stuff we're talking about here should check out a documentary on Netflix called Einstein's Biggest
Blunder (which is how Einstein himself referred to the cosmological constant).

In this documentary, a couple of physicists are positing that perhaps the speed of light has not always been constant. It does *not* contradict
relativity (as light speed remains constant in all intertial frames of reference), but it does offer an alternative to expansionary inflation, plus it
provides a very interesting solution for dark energy.

They are trying to figure out how they might test their hypothesis. But in any case, it is very interesting.

I just tend to think when it comes to unknown forces that we only theoretically know of that anything may be possible.

I know you know my knowledge on this subject is very limited, but I do grasp it quite well.

Hell, we don't even know what causes gravity, we just know how to measure it. It's the dark energy/matter that makes it be. But which dark
force is it? It could go either way. Is it the unknown force of expansion that causes it? Is it the unknown mass of the invisible particle that causes
it?

I think we actually need to figure out WHY gravity exists, and suddenly our knowledge of dark physics will come to light.

originally posted by: Greggers
The D-Wave computer isn't even a quantum computer. It is based purely on the classical model. However, it does leverage quantum tunneling, which is
why D-Wave cites "quantum effects" in its operation.

There are electrical components that leverage quantum tunneling, and we certainly do not refer to these as quantum devices.
...
As it turns out, the D-Wave is the world's best processor for a very specific kind of mathematical calculation, whether it's a quantum computer or
not.

As far as the inventor of the D-Wave, he's fond of making outlandish claims, such as his hyperbolic assertion that quantum tunneling has been proven
to involve extra-spatial dimensions. Don't even get me started....

Yes, the BS was so deep in the video by the CEO of DWave that hip waders
weren't enough, it was all the way up to my neck.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Who knew a simulated annealer that's not even a proper quantum computer is like 'the altar of an alien God'?

One day they'll have a real one. This isn't it.

I'm glad some people see through the hype and recognize this Dwave computer for what it is.

Thank you for posting your information. I do not have any sort of computer back ground other than as an end user... I have mastered how to turn one on
but myself and probably many other have no idea how far the Quantum tech stuff has advanced.

Greggers and Bedlam are spot-on about this not
even being a real quantum computer, so the "D-Wave Quantum Computer" did not "Change My View of Reality Forever", but if you don't know much about
computers or quantum phycsics I guess nobody should fault you for falling for the hype of the CEO, but some due diligence might have led you to the
article greggers posted, which sets the record straight, so I hope you read that and wouldn't use the same thread title if making a thread on this
topic today.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Greggers
Well he is clearly a business man before a scientist, he's trying to hype up his own product and get people interested in it. However many prominent
scientists believe in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics so it's not actually all that crazy to be talking about parallel dimensions
when it comes to quantum mechanics. I personally do not believe in that interpretation of QM.

It might not be crazy since it's one of maybe 10
possible interpretations of quantum mechanics, but his presentation doesn't even hint at the fact there are maybe 9 other possible interpretations
which don't suggest anything like what he said, so his presentation comes across as very misleading when it ignores those completely.

No idea of why entanglement works either. The math says it does. The experiments say it does. It seems to work just like the math says it
should. Any idea why?

I haven't enough time to address this question you pose in the detailed manner I'd like. So, here is a brief response.

I am very dubious regarding the existence of extra spatial dimensions. I don't discount them, but I feel intuitively that they don't exist. I think
the issue depends on relative equality, or more to the point equilibrium of energies and correspondence between quanta. Whether the spectrum of
wavelengths is infinite, existences (I feel) always occur in 3 dimensions only, but what changes are the wavelengths?

Quantum entanglement works (perhaps), because there might be an associated 'left' and 'right-sided-ness' adopted by particles when they become
entangled. It is how we 'discover' the affect of one particle has upon another that suggests they cooperate at a distance.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.